Re: Question for a lintian check
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 04:26:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org> writes:
> > On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 02:32:04PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> I think you can get there with Lintian::Relation; you just have to do
> >> some preprocessing. If the package does not include that chrome.d
> >> file, then split its Depends on comma and then, for each element, see
> >> if iceape-browser implies that element. If that's true, then report
> >> your tag and suggest changing to iceweasel | iceape-browser (>= 2.0).
>
> > Thanks, it works. Though I'll have to group dependencies by package name
> > after splitting on comma (for e.g. package (>= x.y), package (<< z))
>
> Ah, yes.
>
> This will be two places where we could use this (the other being checking
> for too-weak dependencies from a -dev package). We should probably figure
> out some good interface so that we can add this pattern to
> Lintian::Relation.
Probably something that would just split and group the dependencies
would be enough for both uses.
An input like:
package-a (>= 1.0), package-b | package-c, package-a (<< 2.0)
would return:
("package-a (>= 1.0), package-a (<< 2.0)", "package-b | package-c")
There might be some corner cases to consider, though.
Mike
Reply to: